The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months. The fraud caused by the defraudation of a third point of solid art works shall be acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In regard to the facts charged under paragraph (1) of the facts charged, the Defendant merely received three points of art works from the victim and transferred them to F, on the ground that F did not return them to the victim, and that F did not deceive the victim as stated in the facts charged, on the following grounds: “I will sell them within the Republic of Korea, I would have concluded a sentence with the Chief of Staff, and even if I would have been spaced, I would be able to sell them in the Thai Army Chief of Staff.”

In regard to paragraph 2 of the facts charged, the Defendant had the intent and ability to sell the victim’s 300 million won’s illness.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor ex officio made an application for changes in indictment to add applicable provisions of Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act as stated in the facts charged and stated in the criminal facts in the column of reasoning for the judgment, while maintaining them as the primary facts charged in relation to Article 35(2) of the facts charged at the trial, and the court granted this permission.

As examined below, as long as the court below found only the charges added as preliminary charges, the court below's judgment that only the previous primary charges cannot be maintained as they are.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to determination, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the facts charged pursuant to paragraph (1) of this Article, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant, only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, by deceiving the victim as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances recognized by the records of the instant case, namely, purchasing a large amount of art works.